MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990394804 · doi:10.1111/fwb.13428

Can dispersal buffer against salinity‐driven zooplankton community change in Great Plains' lakes?

2019· article· en· W2990394804 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mercedes Huynh, Derek K. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueFreshwater Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsZooplanktonSalinitySpecies richnessBiological dispersalEcologyAbundance (ecology)Community structureEnvironmental scienceOceanographyBiologyPopulationGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The North American Great Plains contains thousands of lakes that vary in salinity from freshwater to hypersaline. Paleolimnological studies show that salinity levels in these lakes are tightly linked with climate, and current projections point to a more arid future in the region due to natural and anthropogenic climate change, potentially influencing lake salinity. Many zooplankton species are sensitive to changes in salinity, and their position near the base of the aquatic food web makes it important to understand how they might respond to increasing salinity levels. Zooplankton communities in lakes with rising salinity levels may exhibit changes in structure, including a shift toward more salinity‐tolerant species and a reduction in abundance, species richness, and diversity. However, it is possible that dispersal of zooplankton among lakes could mitigate such community changes when migrant populations replace sensitive zooplankton with those that are locally adapted to higher salinities. To test if dispersal could reduce salinity‐induced changes in zooplankton communities, we ran a field enclosure experiment at a freshwater lake in southern Saskatchewan where we manipulated salinity levels and zooplankton dispersal. We evaluated how salinity and dispersal influenced species identities and relative abundances (community structure) using multivariate statistics and comparing taxonomic and functional compositions among the different treatments (richness, diversity, and evenness). We found that increasing salinity levels in our enclosures above that in our study lake resulted in lower zooplankton abundances and species richness levels, primarily due to the loss of cladoceran species. However, patterns in our multivariate analyses suggested that cladocerans were maintained in enclosures with salinity levels of 2.5 and 5.0 g/L when those enclosures received immigration from nearby lakes. In contrast, our univariate analyses failed to find evidence that immigration affected community structure (richness, diversity, evenness). The lack of significant statistical differences could suggest that dispersal does not have an effect, or it may have been a problem with statistical power, as a power analysis suggested that fairly large effect sizes would have been required to achieve statistical significance. Based on our results, we were unable to reach a definitive conclusion on the role that dispersal might play in buffering zooplankton communities against salinity‐driven changes. However, our study provides two important insights for planning future work. First, our power analyses indicated that more replication may be needed given the variability among our experimental enclosures. Second, the patterns in our multivariate analyses suggested that cladocerans could be maintained in lakes undergoing salinity increases if they receive immigration from surrounding lakes with higher salinities. Future work examining how inter‐ and intraspecific salinity tolerance varies across lakes with a gradient of salinities would be helpful for understanding the role that dispersal might play in buffering against salinity‐driven losses of cladoceran zooplankton.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFreshwater BiologySame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207